Remarks to the Press by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia on the Ukrainian Armed Forces Attack on Bryansk
Vassily Nebenzia: On March 10, the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev committed yet another barbaric crime against the civilian population of our country by carrying out a missile strike on Bryansk. A busy business district, located in close proximity to multi-apartment residential buildings, children’s goods stores, a university and other civilian infrastructure, came under deliberate attack. As a result of this strike, seven people were killed and 42 were injured.
The expired head of the regime Zelensky, speaking to the press, described this heinous attack as a “successful operation” and thanked the Armed Forces of Ukraine for their service. This is yet another striking example of the sheer cynicism with which the Kiev authorities treat attacks that claim lives of civilians.
The strike was carried out with the use of at least seven long-range British Storm Shadow missiles. It is entirely obvious – and we have repeatedly pointed this out – that such an operation would be technically impossible for the Ukrainian Armed Forces to conduct on their own. The use of advanced Western weaponry takes place only with the direct involvement of foreign specialists who guide the targeting. In addition, certain NATO countries provide the necessary intelligence data. As such, the Western sponsors of Zelensky bear full responsibility for the killing of civilians.
Instead of giving peace negotiations, facilitated by the United States, a genuine chance, Kiev and London are seeking ways to further escalate tensions. This tactic is not new. It has been repeatedly employed whenever a real prospect of settlement begins to emerge. It is hardly a coincidence that the timing of this attack coincided with signals from Washington expressing hope that negotiations on the Ukrainian settlement have reached a “turning point” and that achieving peace is entirely possible.
Regrettably, international organizations have once again remained blind and deaf to what has happened. Yesterday, during the daily noon briefing, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General mentioned the issue only in passing and only after being asked a direct question. Even then, he stated that he “hasn’t seen that particular report”, limiting himself to a general remark that “the UN is against” such attacks. But where is clear and unequivocal condemnation of this crime? Where is the statement from the Secretary-General himself? The continued silence on this and similar grave incidents raises serious questions about the impartiality and consistency of the Organization’s approach. We call on the UN Secretariat to abandon the policy of double standards and to provide an appropriate, clear and unequivocal assessment of this heinous attack.
Thank you.
Q: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. I have a question on the war in Iran. Russia is a close ally of Iran, and President Putin has talked to President Trump and many other leaders. Does Russia see itself playing any kind of a role in negotiations to end this war? Are there talks going on? And if so, how serious are they?
A: There are no negotiations, as you know. Negotiations were held before the aggression started. It started right when negotiations were proceeding and Iran was ready to continue negotiating. But it was a premeditated, deliberate attack, which the United States confessed to. They said later that they were planning it despite all the negotiations that were taking place. Now, as far as I know, there are no negotiations, although Iran has expressed willingness for negotiations.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, this is Namo Abdulla with the Rudaw Media Network. One question on the Strait of Hormuz. For how long do you expect it to stay closed? And is Russia willing to offer help to make sure it remains open?
A: The Strait of Hormuz is not our territorial waters. I don’t think we can do anything about that. The threats to close the Strait of Hormuz are a direct consequence of what is going on in Iran. What will happen to it, I don’t know. But the maritime traffic in that part of the world – a very important one – has been not just severely reduced but basically halted, which tolled immediately on the economic situation, on the situation with hydrocarbons and on the situation with prices. That is very sad. As I said today in my statement, the countries of the region – and not just the region, but the entire world – will feel the consequences, and not just economic consequences, of what is happening in the Middle East.
Q: Ambassador, it’s Pamela Falk from US News & World Report. Reflect on the vote right now on your draft resolution on Iran. Why do you think the other resolution got so much support, and why do you think yours did not?
A: The other resolution is a clear invitation for the aggressors to continue what they are doing. It is unbalanced. As I said, we offered very fair amendments to it, which were completely ignored. We were reassured by our Gulf friends that they had nothing against our draft.
But today we saw the results of the voting. Some of the members – in particular those who voted against it – explained it with a laughable pretext that Russia does not have the right to promote any resolution in the Security Council, thus betraying themselves. Our resolution is very neutral to the gravity of the situation that we are witnessing. We deliberately avoided mentioning who, when and why. But we just called for an early resolution of the crisis and for going back to political and diplomatic means of resolving it.
Q: Why didn’t you veto the resolution? Do you realize this will be a disappointment for Iran?
A: There are many disappointments in the world on many issues. The thing is that we recognize that the Gulf countries suffer. What suffers is not just the American bases that are located in these countries, but civilians and civilian infrastructure, which we do not appreciate, and we say this openly.
And we understand the sentiment of the Gulf countries about it. But the problem is that, as I said, the causes and the consequences in the resolution are put upside down.
Q: Are there any plans to propose another draft resolution on the Middle East?
A: On the Middle East, we just had one. You saw the result. Let us see how it goes. We do not know what will happen next, and we will be guided by the development of the events.
Q: Is there any plans to call for an urgent UNSC meeting on Ukraine?
A: No.
Q: According to President Trump, he had a phone conversation with President Putin. President Putin told him that he was going to help. At the moment, is Russia trying to help the United States? Is the United States now getting this help? What is happening?
A: Helping is not appeasing. We are calling a spade a spade. We are calling things by their names, but we are ready to help get out of the dire situation that the whole region and the United States itself have gotten into.
Q: Neither resolution mentioned the United States or Israel's role in this war. You said that was a deliberate step by Russia. In your view, was it also a deliberate step by the Bahrain resolution? It is a little strange to read the resolution and not see who the perpetrators are named.
A: Two things. First, there is a convention in the Security Council, and you know it pretty well: no UN permanent member will ever vote against itself in a resolution that mentions its name. That is just the way it is. You may laugh at it, but this is how it works. Second, we proposed amendments that did not mention the names but offered solutions. I think that we did not violate either the convention or the essence.
Q: There are some reports that suggest Russia is giving intelligence to the Islamic Republic of Iran.
A: You are asking the wrong person. I am not in the intelligence business.
